5 ms·

I’m actually curious what’s wrong about it? I read it from an outsider perspective and it’s full of very convincing arguments against “blockchains.” You’re abso

I’m actually curious what’s wrong about it? I read it from an outsider perspective and it’s full of very convincing arguments against “blockchains.” You’re absolutely correct that he’s writing from his understanding, but Schneider’s been in the field for decades (more than many Bitcoin proponents are old), so I’m more inclined to believe he knows what he’s talking about than some other random person on the internet.

wongarsu 6y ago
I think the main reason for the dissonance is that Schneier talks about the trust that happens (and maybe has to happen in real-world scenarios) while the bitcoin community likes to talk about the minimum amount of trust necessary. You don't have to trust the software, you can verify it or implement your own. You don't have to trust your internet uplink, the protocol would work over carrier pigeons or with dead drops. You don't have to trust exchanges, just exchange bitcoin for local currency with your neighbor. And even if you use an exchange you shouldn't store money there anyways. The minimum required trust is tiny (basically you yourself), but of course as Schneier points out the amount of trust involved in practise isn't nearly as low, and for many people the failure cases are much worse
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- spurgu 6y ago
  This is pretty much how I interpret it as well, in regards to trust. One detail Schneier misses though is: > Honestly, cryptocurrencies are useless. They’re only used by speculators looking for quick riches, people who don’t like government-backed currencies, and criminals who want a black-market way to exchange money. The second statement contradicts the first. People who don't like/trust government-backed currencies aren't fanatics. The way the big banks handle money is quite reckless and dangerous, as we've seen time and time again. And buying drugs for your own personal use should be legal (IMO) but is not. Cryptocurrencies are useful. Maybe not to most people, or to Bruce Schneier, but that (blanket) statement is simply false.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    This just feels like moving the goalposts, though. Bitcoin has been pushed as this revolutionary thing that's going to fundamentally change currency and payments for everyday people. It hasn't. It likely won't. Maybe some other blockchain-based currency will at some point, but I'm skeptical of that claim. Beyond that, Bitcoin as a simple store of value is an incredibly risky proposition. Someone upthread posted a link to an article claiming that Bitcoin has been the best performing asset over the last 10 years, but that ignores the gut-wrenching volatility it's gone through. And even if you stretch to suggest that Bitcoin has been a good investment, a good investment vehicle is generally not a great currency. If I had a $100 bill that, a week later, was worth $50, I'd be pissed. If another week later it was worth $200, I'd be pleased, but would feel very uncomfortable thinking I can rely on that "currency" to continue to pay my bills over the long term. I'm not saying Bitcoin has failed or that it's useless in general, but as a generic currency replacement I'd say it's pretty weak and unreliable, mainly only suitable for use by people at the margins, people who often can't bear the risk that Bitcoin foists upon them.
    - spurgu 6y ago
      Not arguing any of that. Bitcoin is not very useful as a currency. But I trust bitcoin as a concept more than I trust USD, which is currently being devalued/inflated in favor of the stock market, solely for the gain of people who are more well off than most. I'm not a doomsday prophet nor an economist but the future of the world economy is not looking great. Bitcoin was created as something that governments/banks/corporations couldn't control or manipulate and that's something that's worth a lot in itself, I think. And as I mentioned Monero is quite convenient for shopping on the dark web, without government intervention. If you trust your government, banks, politicians, and agree with all the laws and taxes, then yeah, you might truthfully state that cryptocurrencies are useless. But some believe and argue that governments shouldn't have that kind of control and people should have a higher degree of freedom and privacy. This went a bit off topic perhaps.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  > You don't have to trust the software, you can verify it or implement your own. This is a common refrain among software people, but in reality approximately 0% of the market actually rewrites such software on their own. Most people can't code, and the percentage of those who have the time, interest, and specialized programming skills to rewrite their own financial software is an incredibly tiny pool. In practice, you have to trust someone's code. And auditing doesn't get you very far either. That takes time too, and auditing secure software is really hard. I doubt I could do it, personally. > You don't have to trust your internet uplink, the protocol would work over carrier pigeons or with dead drops. Be serious. Nobody does this, aside from maybe as a joke. > You don't have to trust exchanges, just exchange bitcoin for local currency with your neighbor. You don't have to, yet everyone seems to. Convenience matters, pretending to the contrary is a fool's game. > And even if you use an exchange you shouldn't store money there anyways. Crypto fans say this all the damn time, and yet nobody seems to listen. Maybe because it's foolish advice to give? While this advice is technically strong, it fundamentally fails to understand what people using any financial system want and what motivates them. Nobody wants to turn the process of moving money around into an elaborate song and dance; they want to click a few buttons and have it work. If your system counts on either telling people to avoid the most convenient option to accomplish the task, your advice will continually fail.
  - reificator 6y ago
    I just want to check to see if you read the GP all the way through to the final sentence. You're tearing it apart piece by piece as though the author was making those claims, but you neglected to quote the part of the post that revealed their true opinion. > The minimum required trust is tiny (basically you yourself), but of course as Schneier points out the amount of trust involved in practise isn't nearly as low, and for many people the failure cases are much worse
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      My mistake.
  - insomniacity 6y ago

wongarsu 6y ago

I think the main reason for the dissonance is that Schneier talks about the trust that happens (and maybe has to happen in real-world scenarios) while the bitcoin community likes to talk about the minimum amount of trust necessary. You don't have to trust the software, you can verify it or implement your own. You don't have to trust your internet uplink, the protocol would work over carrier pigeons or with dead drops. You don't have to trust exchanges, just exchange bitcoin for local currency with your neighbor. And even if you use an exchange you shouldn't store money there anyways. The minimum required trust is tiny (basically you yourself), but of course as Schneier points out the amount of trust involved in practise isn't nearly as low, and for many people the failure cases are much worse

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
spurgu 6y ago
This is pretty much how I interpret it as well, in regards to trust. One detail Schneier misses though is: > Honestly, cryptocurrencies are useless. They’re only used by speculators looking for quick riches, people who don’t like government-backed currencies, and criminals who want a black-market way to exchange money. The second statement contradicts the first. People who don't like/trust government-backed currencies aren't fanatics. The way the big banks handle money is quite reckless and dangerous, as we've seen time and time again. And buying drugs for your own personal use should be legal (IMO) but is not. Cryptocurrencies are useful. Maybe not to most people, or to Bruce Schneier, but that (blanket) statement is simply false.
- kelnos 6y ago
  This just feels like moving the goalposts, though. Bitcoin has been pushed as this revolutionary thing that's going to fundamentally change currency and payments for everyday people. It hasn't. It likely won't. Maybe some other blockchain-based currency will at some point, but I'm skeptical of that claim. Beyond that, Bitcoin as a simple store of value is an incredibly risky proposition. Someone upthread posted a link to an article claiming that Bitcoin has been the best performing asset over the last 10 years, but that ignores the gut-wrenching volatility it's gone through. And even if you stretch to suggest that Bitcoin has been a good investment, a good investment vehicle is generally not a great currency. If I had a $100 bill that, a week later, was worth $50, I'd be pissed. If another week later it was worth $200, I'd be pleased, but would feel very uncomfortable thinking I can rely on that "currency" to continue to pay my bills over the long term. I'm not saying Bitcoin has failed or that it's useless in general, but as a generic currency replacement I'd say it's pretty weak and unreliable, mainly only suitable for use by people at the margins, people who often can't bear the risk that Bitcoin foists upon them.
  - spurgu 6y ago
    Not arguing any of that. Bitcoin is not very useful as a currency. But I trust bitcoin as a concept more than I trust USD, which is currently being devalued/inflated in favor of the stock market, solely for the gain of people who are more well off than most. I'm not a doomsday prophet nor an economist but the future of the world economy is not looking great. Bitcoin was created as something that governments/banks/corporations couldn't control or manipulate and that's something that's worth a lot in itself, I think. And as I mentioned Monero is quite convenient for shopping on the dark web, without government intervention. If you trust your government, banks, politicians, and agree with all the laws and taxes, then yeah, you might truthfully state that cryptocurrencies are useless. But some believe and argue that governments shouldn't have that kind of control and people should have a higher degree of freedom and privacy. This went a bit off topic perhaps.
ashtonkem 6y ago
> You don't have to trust the software, you can verify it or implement your own. This is a common refrain among software people, but in reality approximately 0% of the market actually rewrites such software on their own. Most people can't code, and the percentage of those who have the time, interest, and specialized programming skills to rewrite their own financial software is an incredibly tiny pool. In practice, you have to trust someone's code. And auditing doesn't get you very far either. That takes time too, and auditing secure software is really hard. I doubt I could do it, personally. > You don't have to trust your internet uplink, the protocol would work over carrier pigeons or with dead drops. Be serious. Nobody does this, aside from maybe as a joke. > You don't have to trust exchanges, just exchange bitcoin for local currency with your neighbor. You don't have to, yet everyone seems to. Convenience matters, pretending to the contrary is a fool's game. > And even if you use an exchange you shouldn't store money there anyways. Crypto fans say this all the damn time, and yet nobody seems to listen. Maybe because it's foolish advice to give? While this advice is technically strong, it fundamentally fails to understand what people using any financial system want and what motivates them. Nobody wants to turn the process of moving money around into an elaborate song and dance; they want to click a few buttons and have it work. If your system counts on either telling people to avoid the most convenient option to accomplish the task, your advice will continually fail.
- reificator 6y ago
  I just want to check to see if you read the GP all the way through to the final sentence. You're tearing it apart piece by piece as though the author was making those claims, but you neglected to quote the part of the post that revealed their true opinion. > The minimum required trust is tiny (basically you yourself), but of course as Schneier points out the amount of trust involved in practise isn't nearly as low, and for many people the failure cases are much worse
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    My mistake.
- insomniacity 6y ago